How many judgments cite DIT v. Ericsson A.B?

256 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Ericsson A.B (343 ITR 470), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Ericsson A.B come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vi), Section 195, Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 144C(13), Section 234A.

DIT v. Ericsson A.B

343 ITR 470High Court2012#327 most cited

What is DIT v. Ericsson A.B authority for?

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

256

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v Ericsson AB · 343 ITR 470 · Section 9(1)(vi) royalty · DTAA royalty Article 12 · software payments · copyrighted article royalty · reimbursement data processing costs · make available clause · Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence · TDS Section 195

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 371204 Taxmann 192

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 195 Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 144C(13)Section 234A Section 201(1)(A)Section 9(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbb section 9(1)(v)dependent agent pe section 9(2)section 44bb make available clause section 44b agency pe section 195(1)section 9(1)(vi)copyrighted article section 90(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Ericsson A.B

Mi Overseas Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3072/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR

Section 263Section 44BSection 9

…me of the supply of material is not taxable in India. He referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Ishikawajima Harima heavy industries Ltd 288 ITR 408 (SC), CIT versus Hyundai heavy industries 291 ITR 482 (SC) DIT versus Ericsson AB 343 ITR 470 (Delhi), DIT versus Nokia networks OY 358 ITR 259 (Delhi), DIT versus LG Cable Ltd ITA 703 of 2009 dated 24/12/2010 (Delhi), DIT versus Xelo Pty Ltd 203 taxman 475 (Bombay), LS cable Ltd 331 ITR 35 (AR), Deepak Cable India Ltd 337 ITR 127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACI…

Inmarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)-2(1)92), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7485/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shree Manoj Kumar Aggarwalinmarsat Global Ltd., Vs. Dy. Cit(It)-2(1)(2) Ernst & Young Llp, R.No.1612, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Ruby-29, Air India Bldg, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Dadar(W), Mumbai – Mumbai 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci6098K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…e definition of “royalty”, as given in Article 12(3). This proposition is squarely covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (supra), the decision of Delhi High Court in Nokia Network (supra) and DIT v/s Ericson AB, [2012] 343 ITR 470. Even the decisions of Madras High Court as relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is not applicable which is evident from the issue involved as is evident from the substantial question of law which were formulated by the High Court for adjudication. Hence, the said decisions are not applicable. 19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid…

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…1 Notification : No. GSR 105(E) [45/2002 (F. No. 503/6/99-FTD)], dated 20-2-2002. 152 110. A series of judgments by the High Court of Delhi have dealt with the same question that now lies before us. In Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson A.B., (2012) 343 ITR 470 [“Ericsson A.B.”], which happens to be impugned in C.A. Nos. 6386-6387/2016 before us, the assessee was a company incorporated in Sweden which entered into an agreement with Indian cellular operators, pursuant to which the assessee supplied various equipment (hardware) embedded with software to the said cellular operators. The High Court in…

Bombardier Transportation Sweden Ab, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4448/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Bombardier Circle-1(2)(1), Transportation Sweden International Vs. AB, Taxation, C/o-Amit Gupta, Head of Room No.409, Taxation at Bombardier 4th Floor, Transportation India Ltd. Civic Centre, Novotel Pullman New Delhi-110055 Commercial Tower, 3rd Floor, Aerocity, New Delhi- 110037 PAN-AADCB4208M (Appellant) (Respondent) Bombardier Transportation DCIT, Sweden AB, Circle-1(2)(1), C/o-Amit Gupta, Head of Vs. International Taxatio…

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Bombardier Transportation Sweden Ab, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4185/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Section 92C

Inmarsat Global Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7025/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodinmarsat Global Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Tax (International Taxation) 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Circle 2(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Vs. 20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 9(1)(vi)

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…a High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the reliance placed by the assessing officer on the decision of Samsung Electronics (supra) is misplaced. PCIT vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd.: 381 ITR 31 - Ericsson A.B. vs. DIT: 343 ITR 470 - Alcatel Lucent Canada vs. CIT: 372 ITR 476 - Page 90 of 95 CIT vs. Dynamic Vertical Software India (P) Ltd.: 332 ITR - 222 DIT v. Nokia Network, OY: 253 CTR 417 - The aforesaid distinction between copyright and copyrighted - article has also been approved by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in ITA No. 6687/Del/2019 vide order dated 01.05.2020, in appell…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Symantec Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2013-14 Symantec Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., 6 Temasek Boulevard, #12-01, Suntec Tower Four, Singapore 038986 ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaocs1828F Vs The Dcit (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), Room No.419, Block E-2, Civic Centre, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent J.L.N.Marg, New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Ms. Deepika Aggarwal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…t Year 2013-14 be considered as royalty either under the Income-tax Act or the DTAA.” 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) then refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi itself in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), wherein it was held that once it is held that payment in question is not Royalty which would come within the mischief of clause (vi), the Explanation will have no application and that the question of applicability of the Explanation would arise only when payment is to be treated as "Royalty" within the meaning of clause (vi) or "fee for te…

Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3966/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी "शांत मह"ष", लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3966/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15 Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd., B-92, 9th Floor, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAGCM6365H vs The ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), International taxation, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant…

Nagravision Sa, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9130/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.9130/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…red as royalty either under the Income-tax Act or the DTAA.” 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) then refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi itself in DIT Vs. Assessment Year 2016-17 Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), wherein it was held that once it is held that payment in question is not Royalty which would come within the mischief of clause (vi), the Explanation will have no application and that the question of applicability of the Explanation would arise only when payment is to be treated as "Royalty" within the meaning of clause (vi) or "fee for…

M/S. Omron Automation (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2210/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Omron Automation (P) Vs. Dcit Ltd., Circle- 19(1) No.43, G.N. Complex (Old Circle 13(1)) St. John Road, New Delhi Bangalore – 560 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaac08103D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…mation Pvt. Ltd., recalled proceedings, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Erricson AB, New Delhi reported in 343 ITR 470, the Mumbai Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence, the reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) does not come to the rescue of the revenue and rather it advances the case of the assessee. 5.1. Though the ld. AO had categorized the issue to be in the nature of fee for technical services, both under the domestic law as well as u…

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. Dy CIT (It) 2 (1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7313/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dassault Systems Solid The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Works Corporation, Vs. Tax– (International Taxation)- C/O Deloitte Haskins & 2(1)(2) Sells Llp , 7Th Floor, Asv Mumbai Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai – 600 017 Pan No. Aafcs8787E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Singh, CIT D.R

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…s.19,20,14,000/. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on 31st day of March, 2016.” 5. However, the present case has been decided in view of the latest law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ericsson AV (343 ITR 470) (Del.) On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, it came into the notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 (Del.) and in case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) has P a g e | 12 decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Since, the matter has also been considered by the Hon’ble…

Aspect Software Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…rporation (supra), the Assessee being a resident of Republic of China the transactions were governed by the Indo-China DTAA containing identical clauses as the Indo-US DTAA. Relying on the decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson AB (2012) 343 ITR 470, this Court in ZTE Corporation (supra) held in para 22 as under: “22. In the present case, the facts are closely similar to Ericson. The supplies made (of the software) enabled the use of the hardware sold. It was not disputed that without the software, hardware use was not possible. The mere fact that separate invoicing was done for purchase and…

Aspect Software Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7698/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

M/S Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016-2017

ITA 6638/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Shell Information The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology International Bv, Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Vs. 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Apollo Mills Compound, Air India Building, Nariman Point, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 234B

…in in the case of Principal CIT vs M.Tech India Pvt Ltd (supra) and again in the decisions of Alacatel Lucent, Canada, reported [2015] 372 ITR 476 , wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court relying upon its earlier two decisions in the case of DIT vs Ericson , [2012] 343 ITR 470 and DIT vs M/s Nokia Networks, reported in 358 ITR 259 (Del) concluded that, when assessee supplies the software which is incorporated on CD, it has applied only a tangible property and payment made for acquiring such a property cannot be regarded as payment by way of royalty. The relevant observation of the High Court in Alcatel Lucent (supra) i…

M/S. Voith Paper Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5(2)Section 9

…CPPC. He submitted that it was always the intention of the parties that the property in equipment shall be vested in the CPPC at the port of shipment. The Ld. counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Erriction AB 343 ITR 470 wherein it is held that if the equipment was manufactured outside India and even the sale took place outside India, then the fact that equipment was subject to acceptance test in India, did not alter the legal position that title of the equipment passed outside India. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the…

Shell Information Technology Inernational Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7283/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Cit (International Taxation) – 4(2)(1) M/S. Shell Information Technology V. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor International Bv Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O B.S.R. & Co. Llp. Mumbai – 400 021 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244A

…tional BV case of Principal CIT vs M.Tech India Pvt Ltd (supra) and again in the decisions of Alacatel Lucent, Canada, reported [2015] 372 ITR 476 , wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court relying upon its earlier two decisions in the case of DIT vs Ericson , [2012] 343 ITR 470 and DIT vs M/s Nokia Networks, reported in 358 ITR 259 (Del) concluded that, when assessee supplies the software which is incorporated on CD, it has applied only a tangible property and payment made for acquiring such a property cannot be regarded as payment by way of royalty. The relevant observation of the High Court in Alcatel Lucent (supra) i…

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 7027/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledassault Systems Solidworks Corporation Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(2) V. Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnaryana Road Chennai – 600 017 Pan: Aafcs8787E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anantha Krishnan N Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Anantha Krishnan NFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…Rs.19,20,14,000/. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on 31st day of March, 2016.” 5. However, the present case has been decided in view of the latest law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ericsson AV (343 ITR 470) (Del.) On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, it came into the notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 (Del.) and in case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Since, the matter has also been considered by the Hon’ble Income Tax Ap…